The whole thing that irritates me about the way conservatives frame these abuses is the rhetorical high ground they operate from. I, and many other left leaning people don't support illegal...
The whole thing that irritates me about the way conservatives frame these abuses is the rhetorical high ground they operate from.
I, and many other left leaning people don't support illegal immigration. I think people should be deported if they're here illegally. There are about a billion caveats to go along with that though. Such as: we need to massively expand and make the legal immigration process much easier to interact with. Asylum should be as speedy and painless of a process as possible. We should NOT be funding a paramilitary gestapo force to abduct people from the street and whisked off to God knows where in the middle of the night. Illegal immigration is a crime, but it's a crime like jaywalking is a crime, or speeding on an empty freeway is a crime; that is, it's almost always victimless, and is only really a crime because we'd rather people use the legal route.
It's impossible to bring those caveats up with a conservative though. To them it's either you don't support illegal immigration, and thus how ICE is operating is good, or you do support illegal immigration, and that means you want people to come into the country whenever they want, not pay taxes, leave our borders completely open, and fund free social services for anyone who wants them.
Trump so effectively ran on immigration because he realized that that nuance does not exist in the argument. It's immigrants = bad. Period. End of story. If you get them out of the country, you're doing a good job. If you don't, you're doing a bad job. No other factors or nuance enter into the conversation.
It's one of those issues that is so frustrating to talk about with the right because of that.
You've touched on what in my opinion defines modern US conservatives - lack of nuance. This appears in virtually everything they fight for. It's Renee Good's fault she was killed because she...
You've touched on what in my opinion defines modern US conservatives - lack of nuance.
This appears in virtually everything they fight for.
It's Renee Good's fault she was killed because she disobeyed a federal agent - no room to think about how the punishment for disobeying a federal agent shouldn't be death.
It's George Floyd's fault he died because he was on drugs - no room to think about how being on drugs isn't a capital offense and the officers could have had some empathy.
Abortion is evil and must be completely outlawed - no room to think about situations where the fetus is not viable and it is killing the mother, etc.
Any type of gun control is an attempt to take our guns - no room to consider some steps that could be taken to reduce gun deaths.
I've had other examples but this is the first time I've written any down.
This mindset is present up to the very top with Trump and the congressional Republicans seeing any kind of compromise as weakness even when they can't agree among themselves.
This is an area where I conflict with the “moderates” a lot. I don’t like this kind of rhetoric where we carve out “acceptable” abortions. Abortions should be at the sole discretion of the mother,...
Abortion is evil and must be completely outlawed - no room to think about situations where the fetus is not viable and it is killing the mother, etc.
This is an area where I conflict with the “moderates” a lot. I don’t like this kind of rhetoric where we carve out “acceptable” abortions.
Abortions should be at the sole discretion of the mother, period. Not because her life is in danger, or because the fetus is non-viable, but because she doesn’t want to do that with her body right now.
This should be an inviolable rule for all people that they have absolute dominion over their bodily integrity, and we shouldn’t be horse trading those rights away.
Right, I agree, I just wasn't trying to get too much into a specific issue with my list. The "arguments" I picked are what I am shocked even people who disagree with abortion on a moral level...
Right, I agree, I just wasn't trying to get too much into a specific issue with my list. The "arguments" I picked are what I am shocked even people who disagree with abortion on a moral level can't agree on. The idea of letting two lives die because you aren't willing to give up the one already dying is something that I would think even someone who doesn't agree about body sovereignty could understand.
Yeah, this is the strongest argument for abortion, and the only logically consistent one that makes sense to me. Downplaying a fetus as "not human life" or arguing the minutea of when life begins...
Yeah, this is the strongest argument for abortion, and the only logically consistent one that makes sense to me. Downplaying a fetus as "not human life" or arguing the minutea of when life begins is just an argument of semantics that goes nowhere.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that people shouldn't be obliged to use their body in ways they don't agree with. I shouldn't be forced to give a blood donation if I don't want to, I shouldnt be forced to take a vaccine I don't want, and I shouldn't be forced to carry a child against my will.
The correlary to that is that if there were a risk free, easy to access, safe way to remove a fetus from a woman's body and still keep it alive and viable, I would be 100% ok with abortion being made illegal across the board. We're not even close to that existing, and the safest way to terminate a pregnancy is, and will remain for the foreseeable future to be abortion, so it's completely unethical to make it illegal.
That last option opens a few cans of worms though. who is legally and financially responsible for these children? this doesn’t address cases where the fetus has severe abnormalities — do we want...
That last option opens a few cans of worms though.
who is legally and financially responsible for these children?
this doesn’t address cases where the fetus has severe abnormalities — do we want to force the birth of a child with fragile X, angelman, rett syndrome, or other non terminal but horrific conditions?
what about cases of rape? There’s something severely traumatic about having your rapist’s child exist at all
and last but not least, I don’t think this even addresses the underlying bodily autonomy issue. This still demands that a woman undergo a specific medical procedure. Even if it’s safe, you already mentioned vaccines which are not just safe but near universally beneficial — choice is choice, I’m loathe to compromise in the slightest.
Legal and financial responsibility of the child falls to the other parent, or if the other parent isn't willing or able to be responsible, the state. There's no change there, and not wanting to be...
Legal and financial responsibility of the child falls to the other parent, or if the other parent isn't willing or able to be responsible, the state. There's no change there, and not wanting to be responsible for a child isn't really an argument for abortion. Men are already financially responsible for kids they conceive, whether they want to be or not.
In a world where we can magically teleport a fetus from a womb and finish it's gestation without any risk or ill effects, I doubt severe abnormalities would be much of a thing, but I think medical experts could make that determination on a case by case basis, just like parents do now.
In cases of rape, yeah, it could potentially be traumatic? Typically the trauma from being forced to carry a rapists baby is use of your body against your will though. If getting a fetus out of your body is as quick, painless, and risk free as an abortion, we've avoided the most traumatic part.
It doesn't demand a woman undergo a medical procedure, it gives her the choice to either continue or terminate her pregnancy. The same choice she has now. I'm a firm believer in the concept that one person's rights end where another's begin, and I view the strongest argument for abortion being legal as women having full dominion of their own bodies. The fetus isn't their body. So they have the right to demand the fetus stop using their body, but not the right to unilaterally determine what happens to the fetus.
Right now, we lack the technology to preserve the lives of fetuses in a low risk, quick way. If we did though? I can't possibly see a moral argument to allow a mother to determine whether her fetus lives or dies.
Once you start allowing that, you start inviting all other nasty consequences as a result. For instance, why does the mother get the sole choice of whether to decide whether a pregnancy goes through or not? Fathers have just as many parental rights. If it's an issue of parents having dominion over their fetuses, it's as much the father's fetus as the mothers, despite it being dependent on the mother's body. It doesn't morally compute to me that just because someone conceived a fetus, they get to do literally whatever they want to it until it's born.
It makes a lot more sense to allow women to have full dominion over their bodies, but no one else's (including one that's not yet born).
We already have infrastructure for children to be supported by the state. Is it a good system? Not really. But this is a hypothetical anyway. We could make that system good if we wanted. This is...
finances
We already have infrastructure for children to be supported by the state. Is it a good system? Not really. But this is a hypothetical anyway. We could make that system good if we wanted.
abnormalities
This is eugenics. Let’s just not. Please. Anyway, these decisions should be made by a medical professional, not the mother, assuming that the fetus is otherwise viable outside the mother (which is the scenario we are discussing).
rape
So what? I don’t mean to sound insensitive, but why should an unrelated third party be harmed when someone commits a crime? The current issue with rape and abortion is significantly different than the « always viable outside the womb » scenario we are discussing.
bodily autonomy
I think you are misrepresenting the scenario. An abortion is currently a medical procedure. We are just replacing one medical procedure with another medical procedure. The new, hypothetical procedure happens to be significantly more beneficial for 50% of the involved parties.
Further, we seem to have no problem preventing medical procedures that risk the life of the patient. Physician assisted suicide is still illegal in many places. From the perspective of the fetus (especially if it is viable outside the womb), an abortion is functionally a physician assisted homicide.
I think some of this mentality stems from ego defense mechanisms against a world that seems to grow more complex by the day. It's impossible to really understand everything that's going on, and a...
I think some of this mentality stems from ego defense mechanisms against a world that seems to grow more complex by the day. It's impossible to really understand everything that's going on, and a reasonable response to this is to admit what you don't know, and that other people know more than you, and to learn from those people. But this makes some people (maybe even most people) feel inferior.
Somehow, the actual, full-bore idiots tend to feel this way the most, perhaps because of early life experiences being unfairly punished for idiocy (what child isn't an idiot on occasion?) leading to a whole inferiority complex, but also probably due to some Dunning-Kruger-related effects.
Some of my relatives are Trump supporters, unfortunately, and a common thread in arguing with them is how instinctively resistant they are to any form of being corrected on the facts. Even something minor and tangential to the actual argument - "actually, Jerome Powell was originally nominated by Trump back in 2017, Biden only re-nominated him" - is met with a death glare; you can tell it's taking some self control for them not to start a physical altercation. And why? A reasonable person would go "oh, is that so? okay..." and continue talking about the Fed's monetary policy or whatever.
Deprogramming this kind of person needs to account for this emotional reaction. I've had some limited success in commiserating about how complex the world is and how people can't know everything, but this also can undermine your position of justified authority on a particular subject.
The other thing is “it’s legal when we do it.” They are constantly framing these raids as “law enforcement officers conducting legal law enforcement work”… as if any of this is orderly,...
The other thing is “it’s legal when we do it.” They are constantly framing these raids as “law enforcement officers conducting legal law enforcement work”… as if any of this is orderly, constitutional, humane, precedented, ethical, justifiable, and in all other ways legitimate. Which it isn’t. That’s a big, beautiful LIE.
But that framing accomplishes several goals:
Normalizes the gestapo presence and behavior in daily life
Gaslights Americans who know this is an anti-American terroristic atrocity that bears little resemblance to actual law enforcement
Creates a pretext for all opposition to be portrayed as “obstruction of justice”
Emboldens the militant far right to categorize political violence and vigilantism as a patriotic duty
Deflects responsibility for the damage ICE does onto the innocent people who oppose it
Functions as a thought-terminating cliché (as all doublespeak is intended to do) since supporters are likely to equate state action with morality and not interrogate the idea any further
I will say though, that if there is an issue with not being able to easily process an “administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal” then there is something wrong with...
I will say though, that if there is an issue with not being able to easily process an “administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal” then there is something wrong with the system. I’m all for due process, but these people are just using procedural tactics to evade capture. A final order of removal should be just that.
What is stopping the judicial warrants from being readily available? Lack of judges? Something else?
Most of law is procedural tactics. Deportation for unlawful presence is a civil administrative process. There's less due process, significantly reduced or no guaranteed right to counsel (can't...
Most of law is procedural tactics.
Deportation for unlawful presence is a civil administrative process. There's less due process, significantly reduced or no guaranteed right to counsel (can't afford a lawyer? Too bad) and removal is a "remedy" under civil law. That's why you don't get judicial warrants, because no one has been convicted of a crime in the majority of these cases. They don't want to convict undocumented immigrants of crimes because then they get due process, an attorney, etc.
Judicial warrants are generally issued only when there's a serious crime that's been committed or potentially one in progress. Much more similar to other criminal warrants.
So IMO you're flat wrong. It's not an issue of a lack of judges, it's that the removal of undocumented people is not really a safety issue and there's no crime involved. The fact that they're detaining people who are here on valid asylum claims, or at their regularly scheduled immigration hearings should make that clear. They're getting orders of removal after they detain some of these folks. They become "undocumented" only after their documents are revoked.
As for using tactics in "evading capture" as if anyone wouldn't want a lawyer to do absolutely everything in their defense should they be suspected of a crime, wanted for arrest, tried in the court. Due process applies to everyone in the country no matter what their citizenship status. Revoke it for "them" and you revoke it for you.
I think you're conflating two groups of people. I'm speaking specifically about people who have, prior to arrest, been given a "final order of removal". Are these people not at the end of their...
The fact that they're detaining people who are here on valid asylum claims, or at their regularly scheduled immigration hearings should make that clear.
I think you're conflating two groups of people. I'm speaking specifically about people who have, prior to arrest, been given a "final order of removal". Are these people not at the end of their legal process to try to stay in the country?
No it can be appealed and reopened. So you get an order and you can appeal that order. If you don't then it's a "final" order. You can appeal that too. (In a specific court in VA) If you don't go...
I think you're conflating two groups of people. I'm speaking specifically about people who have, prior to arrest, been given a "final order of removal". Are these people not at the end of their legal process to try to stay in the country?
No it can be appealed and reopened.
So you get an order and you can appeal that order. If you don't then it's a "final" order. You can appeal that too. (In a specific court in VA)
If you don't go turn yourself in then ICE can go find you. They just can't break into your house because there's no serious crime or danger to the public, nothing worth violating anyone's 4th amendment rights. Hence the no judicial warrant.
Once you're detained, you should only be deported if your country will accept you, if not or if there's something else going on, they can detain you or put you on an ankle monitor. If you are detained and not being released (especially for more than 6 months) you can file a habeas corpus petition. This doesn't overturn deportation, just your detention.
All of this has broken down now. There's still no judicial warrant involved necessarily in any of the above. It's not about a lack of judges, it's because there are standards for those warrants and being here without documents doesn't reach that.
You know how you could have a misdemeanor warrant in one area and get pulled over two counties away and they won't extradite you because it's not that serious? They certainly don't send the federal marshals and break into your house looking for you? That's (sort of*) why they don't issue a judicial warrant.
*Sort of because it's more like not busting your door down for a lawsuit.
ETA and no I wasn't conflating the two, I talked about the specifics you were talking about and then the broader issue.
You're trying to talk about a narrow group of people, and for those people you're not wrong, but it would reinforce your point if you could show that ICE was restricting themselves to targeting...
You're trying to talk about a narrow group of people, and for those people you're not wrong, but it would reinforce your point if you could show that ICE was restricting themselves to targeting those people. If you can't, you're not really having the same conversation anyone else is.
You are putting words in my mouth. I haven’t said anything of the sort. In fact, this is what I said: I think you are judging me to be some form of Trump apologist, but how many of those are there...
You are putting words in my mouth. I haven’t said anything of the sort.
In fact, this is what I said:
I'm not advocating for warrantless invasions of private space, and I certainly agree that many, possibly most, of the people being snatched by ICE do not fit the category of people who have been already given a final order of removal.
I think you are judging me to be some form of Trump apologist, but how many of those are there here?
The problem is not a lack of processing. It’s that the administrative warrant allows people to be arrested in public, whereas a traditional warrant is what allows a federal (or other governmental)...
The problem is not a lack of processing. It’s that the administrative warrant allows people to be arrested in public, whereas a traditional warrant is what allows a federal (or other governmental) agent to invade a person’s private space.
A traditional warrant is signed by a judge that is a functioning independent party, that can say whether or not there’s a reason to breach a person’s private space, per the fourth amendment.
Without that clearly defined right, people have zero private space.
I'm not advocating for warrantless invasions of private space, and I certainly agree that many, possibly most, of the people being snatched by ICE do not fit the category of people who have been...
I'm not advocating for warrantless invasions of private space, and I certainly agree that many, possibly most, of the people being snatched by ICE do not fit the category of people who have been already given a final order of removal. However, if someone has been ordered to leave, I'm at a loss as to why we wouldn't want to effect that removal immediately, by issuing such a judicial warrant. Are there remaining appeals even though they have been given a "final order" or are they just ignoring the law?
It's not that we don't want to, it's that DHS isn't seeking them. They're asserting that they can go into anyone's house they want if they determine they need to, and a judge doesn't even need to...
I'm at a loss as to why we wouldn't want to effect that removal immediately, by issuing such a judicial warrant.
It's not that we don't want to, it's that DHS isn't seeking them. They're asserting that they can go into anyone's house they want if they determine they need to, and a judge doesn't even need to review it.
This is a pretty obvious fourth amendment violation. Even if you go with the theory that noncitizens aren't protected by the constitution (they are), there's no guaranteeing that they're not invading citizen's privacy as well. Lots of illegal immigrants live with us citizens. Law enforcement agencies also make mistakes on a regular basis.
Putting aside the legality for a moment, I don't want to live in a world where ICE can legally bust my door down because they think an illegal immigrant lives at my house without a judge even granting a warrant.
I see that coming too. Plenty of states have stand your ground law / castle doctrine. I'm pretty sure this is part of what is desired (with the overall effort to manufacture violence) so they can...
I see that coming too. Plenty of states have stand your ground law / castle doctrine. I'm pretty sure this is part of what is desired (with the overall effort to manufacture violence) so they can point to what results from ICE breaking into a gun owners home in the middle of the night and say 'look at this, our officers are being shot, we have to declare martial law / insurrection act / use more force'.
I think, that when ICE kicks the door in of some home and a mother or father defends their home with their sleeping children at their backs, the people who want to spin that as anything other than reality are going to have a difficult time making the majority of the public believe them.
Might be a good time for potential targets to start MAGA-coding their homes. “This house protected by the 2nd Amendment” and “Trespassers will be shot” yard signs. Gadsden flags. Thin blue line...
Might be a good time for potential targets to start MAGA-coding their homes. “This house protected by the 2nd Amendment” and “Trespassers will be shot” yard signs. Gadsden flags. Thin blue line stickers on the door. Maybe a Punisher skull or two for good measure.
I had similar thoughts to this - I would not wish to add to any public perception of acceptance of the regime or support of their ideologies. Now, there are certainly ways / signs / slogans to...
I had similar thoughts to this - I would not wish to add to any public perception of acceptance of the regime or support of their ideologies.
Now, there are certainly ways / signs / slogans to advertise you are armed and believe in self defense that are distinct from MAGA / MAGA-adjacent themes and I wouldn't want to suggest that any and all public display of support for the 2nd amendment should be conflated with MAGA. I know some pretty awesome people who are armed and left-aligned. I'm there too, though I've never put up any signs or bumper stickers to advertise such.
I believe there are some leftist gun rights groups out there. But I don't know what signals I'd use.I don't have a desire to own a gun so it's not something I have considered. I have considered...
I believe there are some leftist gun rights groups out there. But I don't know what signals I'd use.I don't have a desire to own a gun so it's not something I have considered.
I have considered camouflage in general but right now it isn't worth the damage to my soul. In the future it might be.
It's very much a decision for each individual and not for everyone. I typed that about firearm ownership (and the underlying issue of self defense as it relates to the willingness to employ...
It's very much a decision for each individual and not for everyone. I typed that about firearm ownership (and the underlying issue of self defense as it relates to the willingness to employ violence) but I suppose it applies to the consideration of camouflage as well.
As for me, I made my decisions about self defense decades ago while I was still in high school. My father was very outspoken on a number of topics - fighting against Nazism in the public eye, working for the Gay Rights cause back before we had the LGBTQ terms we have now, general human rights work. We were the target of various threats including death threats to all of us - I have one particular memory (high-school age I believe? it might have been earlier than that) of answering the phone and being told by a voice I didn't recognize that I would be taken and mailed back to my father in small pieces.
So I was fairly motivated at a young age to be able to defend myself. I spent around 15 years in martial arts - taking classes and later teaching them, learned how to shoot and got my concealed pistol license, along with pursuing other training like going through Paramedic school. I kind of had what would commonly be called a 'Prepper' mentality through my 20's and into my 30's.
....
My father saw this coming back since... the 90's I think? Not the specific scenario we find ourselves in, but the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in general here in the USA. That Genocide could happen here. He taught for decades as a professor of History and Humanities, and put together and taught a course on Genocide. He put a lot into communicating to his students: 'Yes, it CAN happen here'.
The regime has already built the camps, and is continuing to build more.
Not owning a gun isn't about self-defense for me it's that a) I don't think I could pull the trigger at a person b) if I could take a life I'd be at risk of taking my own and c) my partner would...
Not owning a gun isn't about self-defense for me it's that a) I don't think I could pull the trigger at a person b) if I could take a life I'd be at risk of taking my own and c) my partner would be at risk of taking his own. Plus I have niblings and hell no. Not worth it.
And yeah, it can happen here, I just don't think my solution is to own a gun or fight in the streets. I'm more healer than tank or DPS. We all have our strengths. Camouflage is like I said a matter of damage to the soul and to keep going I need to keep that intact right now. There may be a point where all this changes... my mom didn't own a gun until she was older than I am, though she doesn't anymore to my knowledge... But not today. Not tomorrow. Maybe eventually. (I'm in IL, owning a firearm is a process anyway )
Totally fair. Principle of competing harms right there, not to mention the ethical and very natural inclination to not kill your fellow human beings. If it comes to the point of me, personally,...
Not owning a gun isn't about self-defense for me it's that a) I don't think I could pull the trigger at a person b) if I could take a life I'd be at risk of taking my own and c) my partner would be at risk of taking his own. Plus I have niblings and hell no. Not worth it.
Totally fair. Principle of competing harms right there, not to mention the ethical and very natural inclination to not kill your fellow human beings.
And yeah, it can happen here, I just don't think my solution is to own a gun or fight in the streets.
If it comes to the point of me, personally, fighting in the streets all is pretty much lost at that point and I should have either made the hard call to flee the US and seek refugee status / try to build a life elsewhere (though nowhere is especially safe right now) or I should have figured out and better contributed to something more effective to promote positive change around me. I'm not the type to open-carry a rifle and go protest (and that would be highly counterproductive in my view anyway - nonviolent protest is more effective at swaying public opinion and denying them the excuse they want to escalate... not that they aren't escalating anyway, but more and more of even their own base aren't believing their blatant lies). In the current context, the employment of lethal force is the option of last resort if I'm at home and ICE decides that despite the 4th amendment they want to break my door down and terrorize and/or kidnap me and those I love - but I have a lot of options to go through before the last and worst option. And lethal force very much is the last and worst option.
To be clear those two options were an "or" for me, not an "and". But I understand your point. But also I wish for half the courage of most folks protesting in Minneapolis. But risking even...
To be clear those two options were an "or" for me, not an "and". But I understand your point. But also I wish for half the courage of most folks protesting in Minneapolis. But risking even temporary arrest or medium injury would put my partner at a huge safety risk.
Yes, it's only a matter of time. It seems they only target those that won't do this but clearly with their chaotic and emboldened nature it's inevitable eventually.
Yes, it's only a matter of time. It seems they only target those that won't do this but clearly with their chaotic and emboldened nature it's inevitable eventually.
I agree. ICE's current strategy is deeply unpopular everywhere except the white house. The general populace doesn't like it, the courts don't like it, and Congress doesn't like it. No one truly...
I agree. ICE's current strategy is deeply unpopular everywhere except the white house. The general populace doesn't like it, the courts don't like it, and Congress doesn't like it. No one truly puts a stop to it out of fear of the president right now, but the administration is somewhat tempered by the fact that there is a line, even if it has been pushed so far beyond the norm.
If we start seeing armed resistance to enforcement actions, Congress and the courts will start signaling to trump that the already very slack leash has been dropped. Renee Goode was an attempt at manufacturing that resistance, but she was an unarmed middle aged woman. No one is buying that narrative.
If you have a family holed up with assault rifles though, Trump suddenly gets a boogey man and Congress gets to enthusiastically support this stuff without fear of their constituents labeling them as Nazis.
The whole thing that irritates me about the way conservatives frame these abuses is the rhetorical high ground they operate from.
I, and many other left leaning people don't support illegal immigration. I think people should be deported if they're here illegally. There are about a billion caveats to go along with that though. Such as: we need to massively expand and make the legal immigration process much easier to interact with. Asylum should be as speedy and painless of a process as possible. We should NOT be funding a paramilitary gestapo force to abduct people from the street and whisked off to God knows where in the middle of the night. Illegal immigration is a crime, but it's a crime like jaywalking is a crime, or speeding on an empty freeway is a crime; that is, it's almost always victimless, and is only really a crime because we'd rather people use the legal route.
It's impossible to bring those caveats up with a conservative though. To them it's either you don't support illegal immigration, and thus how ICE is operating is good, or you do support illegal immigration, and that means you want people to come into the country whenever they want, not pay taxes, leave our borders completely open, and fund free social services for anyone who wants them.
Trump so effectively ran on immigration because he realized that that nuance does not exist in the argument. It's immigrants = bad. Period. End of story. If you get them out of the country, you're doing a good job. If you don't, you're doing a bad job. No other factors or nuance enter into the conversation.
It's one of those issues that is so frustrating to talk about with the right because of that.
You've touched on what in my opinion defines modern US conservatives - lack of nuance.
This appears in virtually everything they fight for.
It's Renee Good's fault she was killed because she disobeyed a federal agent - no room to think about how the punishment for disobeying a federal agent shouldn't be death.
It's George Floyd's fault he died because he was on drugs - no room to think about how being on drugs isn't a capital offense and the officers could have had some empathy.
Abortion is evil and must be completely outlawed - no room to think about situations where the fetus is not viable and it is killing the mother, etc.
Any type of gun control is an attempt to take our guns - no room to consider some steps that could be taken to reduce gun deaths.
I've had other examples but this is the first time I've written any down.
This mindset is present up to the very top with Trump and the congressional Republicans seeing any kind of compromise as weakness even when they can't agree among themselves.
This is an area where I conflict with the “moderates” a lot. I don’t like this kind of rhetoric where we carve out “acceptable” abortions.
Abortions should be at the sole discretion of the mother, period. Not because her life is in danger, or because the fetus is non-viable, but because she doesn’t want to do that with her body right now.
This should be an inviolable rule for all people that they have absolute dominion over their bodily integrity, and we shouldn’t be horse trading those rights away.
Right, I agree, I just wasn't trying to get too much into a specific issue with my list. The "arguments" I picked are what I am shocked even people who disagree with abortion on a moral level can't agree on. The idea of letting two lives die because you aren't willing to give up the one already dying is something that I would think even someone who doesn't agree about body sovereignty could understand.
Yeah, this is the strongest argument for abortion, and the only logically consistent one that makes sense to me. Downplaying a fetus as "not human life" or arguing the minutea of when life begins is just an argument of semantics that goes nowhere.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that people shouldn't be obliged to use their body in ways they don't agree with. I shouldn't be forced to give a blood donation if I don't want to, I shouldnt be forced to take a vaccine I don't want, and I shouldn't be forced to carry a child against my will.
The correlary to that is that if there were a risk free, easy to access, safe way to remove a fetus from a woman's body and still keep it alive and viable, I would be 100% ok with abortion being made illegal across the board. We're not even close to that existing, and the safest way to terminate a pregnancy is, and will remain for the foreseeable future to be abortion, so it's completely unethical to make it illegal.
That last option opens a few cans of worms though.
Legal and financial responsibility of the child falls to the other parent, or if the other parent isn't willing or able to be responsible, the state. There's no change there, and not wanting to be responsible for a child isn't really an argument for abortion. Men are already financially responsible for kids they conceive, whether they want to be or not.
In a world where we can magically teleport a fetus from a womb and finish it's gestation without any risk or ill effects, I doubt severe abnormalities would be much of a thing, but I think medical experts could make that determination on a case by case basis, just like parents do now.
In cases of rape, yeah, it could potentially be traumatic? Typically the trauma from being forced to carry a rapists baby is use of your body against your will though. If getting a fetus out of your body is as quick, painless, and risk free as an abortion, we've avoided the most traumatic part.
It doesn't demand a woman undergo a medical procedure, it gives her the choice to either continue or terminate her pregnancy. The same choice she has now. I'm a firm believer in the concept that one person's rights end where another's begin, and I view the strongest argument for abortion being legal as women having full dominion of their own bodies. The fetus isn't their body. So they have the right to demand the fetus stop using their body, but not the right to unilaterally determine what happens to the fetus.
Right now, we lack the technology to preserve the lives of fetuses in a low risk, quick way. If we did though? I can't possibly see a moral argument to allow a mother to determine whether her fetus lives or dies.
Once you start allowing that, you start inviting all other nasty consequences as a result. For instance, why does the mother get the sole choice of whether to decide whether a pregnancy goes through or not? Fathers have just as many parental rights. If it's an issue of parents having dominion over their fetuses, it's as much the father's fetus as the mothers, despite it being dependent on the mother's body. It doesn't morally compute to me that just because someone conceived a fetus, they get to do literally whatever they want to it until it's born.
It makes a lot more sense to allow women to have full dominion over their bodies, but no one else's (including one that's not yet born).
We already have infrastructure for children to be supported by the state. Is it a good system? Not really. But this is a hypothetical anyway. We could make that system good if we wanted.
This is eugenics. Let’s just not. Please. Anyway, these decisions should be made by a medical professional, not the mother, assuming that the fetus is otherwise viable outside the mother (which is the scenario we are discussing).
So what? I don’t mean to sound insensitive, but why should an unrelated third party be harmed when someone commits a crime? The current issue with rape and abortion is significantly different than the « always viable outside the womb » scenario we are discussing.
I think you are misrepresenting the scenario. An abortion is currently a medical procedure. We are just replacing one medical procedure with another medical procedure. The new, hypothetical procedure happens to be significantly more beneficial for 50% of the involved parties.
Further, we seem to have no problem preventing medical procedures that risk the life of the patient. Physician assisted suicide is still illegal in many places. From the perspective of the fetus (especially if it is viable outside the womb), an abortion is functionally a physician assisted homicide.
I think some of this mentality stems from ego defense mechanisms against a world that seems to grow more complex by the day. It's impossible to really understand everything that's going on, and a reasonable response to this is to admit what you don't know, and that other people know more than you, and to learn from those people. But this makes some people (maybe even most people) feel inferior.
Somehow, the actual, full-bore idiots tend to feel this way the most, perhaps because of early life experiences being unfairly punished for idiocy (what child isn't an idiot on occasion?) leading to a whole inferiority complex, but also probably due to some Dunning-Kruger-related effects.
Some of my relatives are Trump supporters, unfortunately, and a common thread in arguing with them is how instinctively resistant they are to any form of being corrected on the facts. Even something minor and tangential to the actual argument - "actually, Jerome Powell was originally nominated by Trump back in 2017, Biden only re-nominated him" - is met with a death glare; you can tell it's taking some self control for them not to start a physical altercation. And why? A reasonable person would go "oh, is that so? okay..." and continue talking about the Fed's monetary policy or whatever.
Deprogramming this kind of person needs to account for this emotional reaction. I've had some limited success in commiserating about how complex the world is and how people can't know everything, but this also can undermine your position of justified authority on a particular subject.
The other thing is “it’s legal when we do it.” They are constantly framing these raids as “law enforcement officers conducting legal law enforcement work”… as if any of this is orderly, constitutional, humane, precedented, ethical, justifiable, and in all other ways legitimate. Which it isn’t. That’s a big, beautiful LIE.
But that framing accomplishes several goals:
I will say though, that if there is an issue with not being able to easily process an “administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal” then there is something wrong with the system. I’m all for due process, but these people are just using procedural tactics to evade capture. A final order of removal should be just that.
What is stopping the judicial warrants from being readily available? Lack of judges? Something else?
Most of law is procedural tactics.
Deportation for unlawful presence is a civil administrative process. There's less due process, significantly reduced or no guaranteed right to counsel (can't afford a lawyer? Too bad) and removal is a "remedy" under civil law. That's why you don't get judicial warrants, because no one has been convicted of a crime in the majority of these cases. They don't want to convict undocumented immigrants of crimes because then they get due process, an attorney, etc.
Judicial warrants are generally issued only when there's a serious crime that's been committed or potentially one in progress. Much more similar to other criminal warrants.
So IMO you're flat wrong. It's not an issue of a lack of judges, it's that the removal of undocumented people is not really a safety issue and there's no crime involved. The fact that they're detaining people who are here on valid asylum claims, or at their regularly scheduled immigration hearings should make that clear. They're getting orders of removal after they detain some of these folks. They become "undocumented" only after their documents are revoked.
As for using tactics in "evading capture" as if anyone wouldn't want a lawyer to do absolutely everything in their defense should they be suspected of a crime, wanted for arrest, tried in the court. Due process applies to everyone in the country no matter what their citizenship status. Revoke it for "them" and you revoke it for you.
I think you're conflating two groups of people. I'm speaking specifically about people who have, prior to arrest, been given a "final order of removal". Are these people not at the end of their legal process to try to stay in the country?
No it can be appealed and reopened.
So you get an order and you can appeal that order. If you don't then it's a "final" order. You can appeal that too. (In a specific court in VA)
If you don't go turn yourself in then ICE can go find you. They just can't break into your house because there's no serious crime or danger to the public, nothing worth violating anyone's 4th amendment rights. Hence the no judicial warrant.
Once you're detained, you should only be deported if your country will accept you, if not or if there's something else going on, they can detain you or put you on an ankle monitor. If you are detained and not being released (especially for more than 6 months) you can file a habeas corpus petition. This doesn't overturn deportation, just your detention.
All of this has broken down now. There's still no judicial warrant involved necessarily in any of the above. It's not about a lack of judges, it's because there are standards for those warrants and being here without documents doesn't reach that.
You know how you could have a misdemeanor warrant in one area and get pulled over two counties away and they won't extradite you because it's not that serious? They certainly don't send the federal marshals and break into your house looking for you? That's (sort of*) why they don't issue a judicial warrant.
*Sort of because it's more like not busting your door down for a lawsuit.
ETA and no I wasn't conflating the two, I talked about the specifics you were talking about and then the broader issue.
You're trying to talk about a narrow group of people, and for those people you're not wrong, but it would reinforce your point if you could show that ICE was restricting themselves to targeting those people. If you can't, you're not really having the same conversation anyone else is.
You are putting words in my mouth. I haven’t said anything of the sort.
In fact, this is what I said:
I think you are judging me to be some form of Trump apologist, but how many of those are there here?
The problem is not a lack of processing. It’s that the administrative warrant allows people to be arrested in public, whereas a traditional warrant is what allows a federal (or other governmental) agent to invade a person’s private space.
A traditional warrant is signed by a judge that is a functioning independent party, that can say whether or not there’s a reason to breach a person’s private space, per the fourth amendment.
Without that clearly defined right, people have zero private space.
I'm not advocating for warrantless invasions of private space, and I certainly agree that many, possibly most, of the people being snatched by ICE do not fit the category of people who have been already given a final order of removal. However, if someone has been ordered to leave, I'm at a loss as to why we wouldn't want to effect that removal immediately, by issuing such a judicial warrant. Are there remaining appeals even though they have been given a "final order" or are they just ignoring the law?
It's not that we don't want to, it's that DHS isn't seeking them. They're asserting that they can go into anyone's house they want if they determine they need to, and a judge doesn't even need to review it.
This is a pretty obvious fourth amendment violation. Even if you go with the theory that noncitizens aren't protected by the constitution (they are), there's no guaranteeing that they're not invading citizen's privacy as well. Lots of illegal immigrants live with us citizens. Law enforcement agencies also make mistakes on a regular basis.
Putting aside the legality for a moment, I don't want to live in a world where ICE can legally bust my door down because they think an illegal immigrant lives at my house without a judge even granting a warrant.
https://archive.is/UOec7
In b4 Waco happens again
That would require that ICE target people who are ready to respond to violence with violence instead of lawsuits.
Break into enough houses they’re bound to find someone willing to protect their property with violence
I see that coming too. Plenty of states have stand your ground law / castle doctrine. I'm pretty sure this is part of what is desired (with the overall effort to manufacture violence) so they can point to what results from ICE breaking into a gun owners home in the middle of the night and say 'look at this, our officers are being shot, we have to declare martial law / insurrection act / use more force'.
I think, that when ICE kicks the door in of some home and a mother or father defends their home with their sleeping children at their backs, the people who want to spin that as anything other than reality are going to have a difficult time making the majority of the public believe them.
Might be a good time for potential targets to start MAGA-coding their homes. “This house protected by the 2nd Amendment” and “Trespassers will be shot” yard signs. Gadsden flags. Thin blue line stickers on the door. Maybe a Punisher skull or two for good measure.
Most folks don't want to present that way though. Some of those things are actually going to make the wrong people afraid of you
I had similar thoughts to this - I would not wish to add to any public perception of acceptance of the regime or support of their ideologies.
Now, there are certainly ways / signs / slogans to advertise you are armed and believe in self defense that are distinct from MAGA / MAGA-adjacent themes and I wouldn't want to suggest that any and all public display of support for the 2nd amendment should be conflated with MAGA. I know some pretty awesome people who are armed and left-aligned. I'm there too, though I've never put up any signs or bumper stickers to advertise such.
I believe there are some leftist gun rights groups out there. But I don't know what signals I'd use.I don't have a desire to own a gun so it's not something I have considered.
I have considered camouflage in general but right now it isn't worth the damage to my soul. In the future it might be.
It's very much a decision for each individual and not for everyone. I typed that about firearm ownership (and the underlying issue of self defense as it relates to the willingness to employ violence) but I suppose it applies to the consideration of camouflage as well.
As for me, I made my decisions about self defense decades ago while I was still in high school. My father was very outspoken on a number of topics - fighting against Nazism in the public eye, working for the Gay Rights cause back before we had the LGBTQ terms we have now, general human rights work. We were the target of various threats including death threats to all of us - I have one particular memory (high-school age I believe? it might have been earlier than that) of answering the phone and being told by a voice I didn't recognize that I would be taken and mailed back to my father in small pieces.
So I was fairly motivated at a young age to be able to defend myself. I spent around 15 years in martial arts - taking classes and later teaching them, learned how to shoot and got my concealed pistol license, along with pursuing other training like going through Paramedic school. I kind of had what would commonly be called a 'Prepper' mentality through my 20's and into my 30's.
....
My father saw this coming back since... the 90's I think? Not the specific scenario we find ourselves in, but the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in general here in the USA. That Genocide could happen here. He taught for decades as a professor of History and Humanities, and put together and taught a course on Genocide. He put a lot into communicating to his students: 'Yes, it CAN happen here'.
The regime has already built the camps, and is continuing to build more.
Not owning a gun isn't about self-defense for me it's that a) I don't think I could pull the trigger at a person b) if I could take a life I'd be at risk of taking my own and c) my partner would be at risk of taking his own. Plus I have niblings and hell no. Not worth it.
And yeah, it can happen here, I just don't think my solution is to own a gun or fight in the streets. I'm more healer than tank or DPS. We all have our strengths. Camouflage is like I said a matter of damage to the soul and to keep going I need to keep that intact right now. There may be a point where all this changes... my mom didn't own a gun until she was older than I am, though she doesn't anymore to my knowledge... But not today. Not tomorrow. Maybe eventually. (I'm in IL, owning a firearm is a process anyway )
Totally fair. Principle of competing harms right there, not to mention the ethical and very natural inclination to not kill your fellow human beings.
If it comes to the point of me, personally, fighting in the streets all is pretty much lost at that point and I should have either made the hard call to flee the US and seek refugee status / try to build a life elsewhere (though nowhere is especially safe right now) or I should have figured out and better contributed to something more effective to promote positive change around me. I'm not the type to open-carry a rifle and go protest (and that would be highly counterproductive in my view anyway - nonviolent protest is more effective at swaying public opinion and denying them the excuse they want to escalate... not that they aren't escalating anyway, but more and more of even their own base aren't believing their blatant lies). In the current context, the employment of lethal force is the option of last resort if I'm at home and ICE decides that despite the 4th amendment they want to break my door down and terrorize and/or kidnap me and those I love - but I have a lot of options to go through before the last and worst option. And lethal force very much is the last and worst option.
To be clear those two options were an "or" for me, not an "and". But I understand your point. But also I wish for half the courage of most folks protesting in Minneapolis. But risking even temporary arrest or medium injury would put my partner at a huge safety risk.
It's hard.
Yes, it's only a matter of time. It seems they only target those that won't do this but clearly with their chaotic and emboldened nature it's inevitable eventually.
Yeah right like eventually they’re gonna get the wrong house like they always do
I don’t think they are avoiding people who would respond with violence. I think they would welcome resistance as a justification for more violence.
No kidding. The immediacy of their defamation of Renee Good reveals exactly how eager they are to find enemies to make examples of.
I agree. ICE's current strategy is deeply unpopular everywhere except the white house. The general populace doesn't like it, the courts don't like it, and Congress doesn't like it. No one truly puts a stop to it out of fear of the president right now, but the administration is somewhat tempered by the fact that there is a line, even if it has been pushed so far beyond the norm.
If we start seeing armed resistance to enforcement actions, Congress and the courts will start signaling to trump that the already very slack leash has been dropped. Renee Goode was an attempt at manufacturing that resistance, but she was an unarmed middle aged woman. No one is buying that narrative.
If you have a family holed up with assault rifles though, Trump suddenly gets a boogey man and Congress gets to enthusiastically support this stuff without fear of their constituents labeling them as Nazis.
It would make all of this so much worse.